Posted by dereklane
on October 30, 2009, 7:43 pm, in reply to "Re: so it seems -nm"
"That's because they didn't have obey laws that have restricted unions brought in by Thatcher and that the present New Labour government have done absolutely nothing about. "
So does that mean they now don't? I'm having trouble keeping up Stevo. I've no affiliation either way, so I'm standing completely outside of special interests here.
All I can see is a big union facing an even bigger company on capitalist grounds. Except, the union is on the back foot, because recessions cause unemployment, and people who are unemployed are the least able to choose a virtuous and activist path (unless they're prepared to lose everything they have for the sake of some union joe who doesn't care if they do, just as long as they don't break a strike.) Is that fair? Why pick on these people, who are *inevitably* going to take the work.
Someone above suggested my idea wouldn't work, because there would be a lockout and they'd probably all lose their jobs. Why? What is the fundamental difference between striking outdoors and striking at your desk. Why would one approach lose your job and the other not?
It would seem that the obvious answer is that striking outside allows the company to employ others to fill in, so they don't get too pissed off with the strikers to fire them. Or is there some other factor? Are you sure that this method of striking isn't built into the capitalist system to provide an outlet, but a narrowly defined one. Where pay and conditions were being considered, the strike may be successful. Where its not, no amount of persuasion will do it. It's just a thought.
Again, we go back to the problem. Let's point it out again. In a capitalist system in a recession, there will *always* be reserve workers willing to take up the slack (because they are desperate). So if that is a given (and it is a given, unless you presuppose some fanciful loyalty to an organisation that doesn't give it back), then why continue this approach, with the very unfair side affect of putting the blame on the shoulders of strik breakers, rather than, for example, mismanagement and poor problem solving in the upper echelons of the union, or the company itself, for employing replacement workers?
Why does it fall to you (and other union advocates) to say so unequivocally, these people (previously unemployed, no doubt with mounting bills) are to blame? How, and who, does such a line of reasoning help?
cheers,
Derek
--Previous Message--
: "Do you support the right to
: strike?"
:
:
:
: Strange that Derek doesn't seem to have
: answered this simple question.
:
: And strikes do work!! The 1972 and 1974
: miners strike were both successfull.
:
: That's because they didn't have obey laws
: that have restricted unions brought in by
: Thatcher and that the present New Labour
: government have done absolutely nothing
: about.
:
: --Previous Message--
: "Like, maybe striking *at* work, *in*
: the
: sorting office, *at* your desk. Shift no
: post, but conscientiously object to working
: whilst there."
:
: I'd imagine this approach would lead to a
: lock out at best and instant dismissal and
: arrest at worst.
:
: "what are unions for if not to come up
: with something more ingenious than what
: they've been doing for a couple of hundred
: years that will actually work?"
:
: So strikes don't work?
:
: Do you support the right to strike?
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: That's fair enough JohnLilburne,
:
:
:
:
:
Responses: